4 ms·

| This is truly the dark age of the information era. This is nonsense. Losing your audience has always been a concern for authors and it is easier to get an au

| This is truly the dark age of the information era. This is nonsense. Losing your audience has always been a concern for authors and it is easier to get an audience now than it has ever been.

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
It is not easy if popular platforms are pressured to not do business with you, because vocal minority deem you unfit to be published.
- heterodoxxed 6y ago
  Which authors have experienced this?
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    Isabel Fall seems to be an interesting example: https://reason.com/2020/01/17/canceled-transgender-story/ https://reason.com/2020/01/17/canceled-transgender-story/
    - heterodoxxed 6y ago
      I'm not clear why this applies, she wasn't dropped by her publisher or blacklisted. She chose to cancel the story herself.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
        This is exactly what the article discusses and this is also the reason why it is relevant and why it applies. The topic becomes too controversial for a vocal minority and an author "voluntarily" self-censored. I chuckled when you said she did it herself. She did, likely after she was told what would happen otherwise. I chuckled, because I assume you think she is free the way Sartre suggested she is free?
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        heterodoxxed 6y ago
        I was responding to this: | This is truly the dark age of the information era. and this: | popular platforms are pressured to not do business with you Both implies greater forces at play than a small, small minority of voices on twitter making authors feel bad. Social media gave everyone a voice, what I don't understand is why anyone is surprised that there are vocal micro-minorities like this. Years ago, they wrote a letter to the editor or the television station. Now they write it on Twitter. That's not a dark age, and the opportunity to publish is much, much better now than it has ever been in the modern era. | She did, likely after she was told what would happen otherwise. Do you have any evidence of this or are you just saying it?
        A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
        "| She did, likely after she was told what would happen otherwise. Do you have any evidence of this or are you just saying it? " If you are asking if I have inside information and maybe personal email between author and medium. I do not. It would be odd if I did. What I do have, however, is rather vivid memories of the same kind of idiocy working in practice in the old country, the only difference being that it was done under barely hidden threat from the state. All I have is instinct and here it is flashing bright red, because there are people in US right now, who are happily accepting this not only acceptable, but necessary ( not completely unlike communism era writers writing morality plays about the importance of writing things that are not upsetting to the system ). "I was responding to this: | This is truly the dark age of the information era. and this: | popular platforms are pressured to not do business with you Both implies greater forces at play than a small, small minority of voices on twitter making authors feel bad. Social media gave everyone a voice, what I don't understand is why anyone is surprised that there are vocal micro-minorities like this. Years ago, they wrote a letter to the editor or the television station. Now they write it on Twitter. That's not a dark age, and the opportunity to publish is much, much better now than it has ever been in the modern era." If dissenting voices are silenced, it absolutely bears comparison to a dark age of information. You cannot excuse it. Nor should you.
      - inglor_cz 6y ago
        Chiming in from a country that had some classic show trials in the 50s (Czech Republic): the ultimate goal of the show trial was to get the indicted to self-confess and ask for a punishment themselves, in front of the public. Cancel culture does not have the (physical) death penalty, only a possibly social one, but the impulse seems similar. Once you are put on the show trial, you are expected to grovel, beg, repudiate yourself etc. before being finally dispatched.
        heterodoxxed 6y ago
        Don't you think that's just a little bit hysterical, comparing a minority of people complaining on twitter to a government show trial?
        inglor_cz 6y ago
        If they can get you ostracized socially (fired from a job, blacklisted in an industry), that is not a small punishment. Plus, what interests me is the underlying mentality. It seems to be similar. It only does not have enough power right now, fortunately. But the idea of destroying the heretic in maximal possible extent seems to be a fairly consistent common denominator. It is actually useful to know that it is still present in contemporary population; it means that if enough things go wrong and that faction gains power, you will see similar results once again.
        heterodoxxed 6y ago
        | It seems to be similar. It has much more in common with the Amish than it does with Soviet style authoritarianism.

| This is truly the dark age of the information era. This is nonsense. Losing your audience has always been a concern for authors and it is easier to get an audience now than it has ever been.

A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago

It is not easy if popular platforms are pressured to not do business with you, because vocal minority deem you unfit to be published.

heterodoxxed 6y ago
Which authors have experienced this?
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  Isabel Fall seems to be an interesting example: https://reason.com/2020/01/17/canceled-transgender-story/ https://reason.com/2020/01/17/canceled-transgender-story/
  - heterodoxxed 6y ago
    I'm not clear why this applies, she wasn't dropped by her publisher or blacklisted. She chose to cancel the story herself.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
      This is exactly what the article discusses and this is also the reason why it is relevant and why it applies. The topic becomes too controversial for a vocal minority and an author "voluntarily" self-censored. I chuckled when you said she did it herself. She did, likely after she was told what would happen otherwise. I chuckled, because I assume you think she is free the way Sartre suggested she is free?
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - heterodoxxed 6y ago
        I was responding to this: | This is truly the dark age of the information era. and this: | popular platforms are pressured to not do business with you Both implies greater forces at play than a small, small minority of voices on twitter making authors feel bad. Social media gave everyone a voice, what I don't understand is why anyone is surprised that there are vocal micro-minorities like this. Years ago, they wrote a letter to the editor or the television station. Now they write it on Twitter. That's not a dark age, and the opportunity to publish is much, much better now than it has ever been in the modern era. | She did, likely after she was told what would happen otherwise. Do you have any evidence of this or are you just saying it?
        A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
        "| She did, likely after she was told what would happen otherwise. Do you have any evidence of this or are you just saying it? " If you are asking if I have inside information and maybe personal email between author and medium. I do not. It would be odd if I did. What I do have, however, is rather vivid memories of the same kind of idiocy working in practice in the old country, the only difference being that it was done under barely hidden threat from the state. All I have is instinct and here it is flashing bright red, because there are people in US right now, who are happily accepting this not only acceptable, but necessary ( not completely unlike communism era writers writing morality plays about the importance of writing things that are not upsetting to the system ). "I was responding to this: | This is truly the dark age of the information era. and this: | popular platforms are pressured to not do business with you Both implies greater forces at play than a small, small minority of voices on twitter making authors feel bad. Social media gave everyone a voice, what I don't understand is why anyone is surprised that there are vocal micro-minorities like this. Years ago, they wrote a letter to the editor or the television station. Now they write it on Twitter. That's not a dark age, and the opportunity to publish is much, much better now than it has ever been in the modern era." If dissenting voices are silenced, it absolutely bears comparison to a dark age of information. You cannot excuse it. Nor should you.
    - inglor_cz 6y ago
      Chiming in from a country that had some classic show trials in the 50s (Czech Republic): the ultimate goal of the show trial was to get the indicted to self-confess and ask for a punishment themselves, in front of the public. Cancel culture does not have the (physical) death penalty, only a possibly social one, but the impulse seems similar. Once you are put on the show trial, you are expected to grovel, beg, repudiate yourself etc. before being finally dispatched.
      - heterodoxxed 6y ago
        Don't you think that's just a little bit hysterical, comparing a minority of people complaining on twitter to a government show trial?
        inglor_cz 6y ago
        If they can get you ostracized socially (fired from a job, blacklisted in an industry), that is not a small punishment. Plus, what interests me is the underlying mentality. It seems to be similar. It only does not have enough power right now, fortunately. But the idea of destroying the heretic in maximal possible extent seems to be a fairly consistent common denominator. It is actually useful to know that it is still present in contemporary population; it means that if enough things go wrong and that faction gains power, you will see similar results once again.
        heterodoxxed 6y ago
        | It seems to be similar. It has much more in common with the Amish than it does with Soviet style authoritarianism.